Often, construction materials for large projects are sourced from various suppliers. Each source is required to meet certain minimum specifications as required by the contractor. Once these materials are delivered to the job site and integrated into the construction, it is very difficult to determine the origin of the materials. For example, for a large project such as a dam, bridge, skyscraper, etc., concrete is often delivered to the job-site from several different cement companies. The concrete is poured and hardens. After the project is complete, it is very difficult to tell which sections of concrete were sourced from which companies. This is very frustrating when the final structure later fails due to cracking, delamination, spalling, discoloration, and/or surface dust formation. It has long been a burden of the courts to decide the origin of certain construction materials, typically after those materials fail.
For example, a company called M+P Labs provides forensic investigation of failed reinforced concrete. Their investigations help the courts decide if the failed concrete meets the concrete mix design, whether there were compatibility issues between the failed concrete and the environment, whether the water/cement ratio was correct, whether the concrete was placed correctly, finished correctly, and cured correctly. This company provides these services for several reasons, such as to determine blame when the concrete fails. For example, was the failure due to the mixing or placement of the concrete, placing blame on the contractor. Or was the concrete mix the cause, placing the blame on the concrete manufacturer. Such an investigation is often difficult when the job is large and a contractor hires subcontractors, each subcontractor providing mix from a different cement plant. Once the cement is mixed and poured, it is often difficult to determine the origin of each concrete section. Consider a roadway in which rectangular slabs are poured from a series of cement trucks. The first slab is poured with cement from company ‘a,’ the second from company ‘b,’ the third and fourth section from company ‘a,’ and the fifth from company ‘c.’ Now, consider that after 10 years of use the third slab begins to delaminate, and a delaminated section is lifted by a truck and injures a pedestrian. The injured hires a forensic company to determine if company ‘a,’ ‘b,’ ‘c,’ or an engineering company is responsible for the delamination and, hence, the injury. Since the rectangular slabs are all made of concrete with substantially the same ingredients, it is very difficult to determine the origin of any particular slab. Since it is so difficult to determine, at times, the wrong company is charged with responsibility.
To protect from being wrongly assessed with blame for materials provided, many companies need a way to positively identify their materials, even years after their materials have been used in construction projects.
In a similar scenario, a bonding agent is used, for example, to bond stucco to a surface. Later, when the bonding agent fails and the stucco peels from the underwall, the origin of the bonding agent is needed to determine who will be responsible for repairs.
Another example has to do with toxic waste. When a conscientious company needs to dispose of toxic waste, that company hires a disposal company who is believed to be responsible and will dispose of the waste properly. Unfortunately, there have been examples of improper disposal such as dumping 55 gallon drums of toxic waste in bodies of water. When these drums are discovered, there is presently little evidence to track the toxic waste back to the origin and to determine who is responsible for the improper disposal and resulting pollution.
Litigation costs for such activities are often extremely expensive and, a wrongfully accused company often expends hundreds of thousands of dollars defending itself from wrongful claims and law suits.
What is needed is a system that will provide positive identification as to the origin of a material.